Re: RFS: ustr
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 10:06:42AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> Václav Ovsík <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:53:54AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> > My intention was similar, first version of ustr source package builds
> > into:
> > libustr-1.0-1 - Micro string library: shared library
> > libustr-1.0-1-dbg - Micro string library: debugging symbols
> > libustr-dev - Micro string library: development stuff
> > libustr-doc - Micro string library: documentation
> > libustr-debug-1.0-1 - Micro string library: shared library for debugging
> > libustr-debug-dev - Micro string library: development stuff for debugging
> > Last two packages contain debug flavour of ustr. I instructed CDBS to
> > not strip this library, because I thought, that this library is used
> > only for developer to test your application and debug it. I expected,
> > that this flavour of lib is not for production and that no package
> > should depend on it or use it. Lintian checker didn't report any problem
> > there and I didn't run linda on result.
> > There is possibility to fulfill Debian policy or habit by separating
> > symbols into a bit strange looking package libustr-debug-1.0-1-dbg :-).
> > So I can end with branch of packages
> > libustr-debug-1.0-1
> > libustr-debug-1.0-1-dbg
> > libustr-debug-dev
> > Maybe another approach can be to separate debugging symbols into
> > separate file and include this into libustr-debug-1.0-1. This solution
> > can be only workaround for the linda error report and makes a sence only if
> > the debug library have not a sense without debugging symbols.
> > It seems to me (Makefile), that debug flavour of static library at least
> > must by build if I want to run library checks (make check),
> > so time & resources can't be saved by excluding debug flavour.
> > Q1: Is sufficient libustr-debug.a alone for debugging? That is
> > libustr-debug-dev package remaining only and no shared version.
> Yes, it's sufficient, indeed it's unlikely that people will want to
> run full time with the debugging library (where shared libraries have
> an advantage).
> The main reason for shipping one is...
> Fedora packaging requires shared libraries (even going so far as to
> require separate packages for static libraries), so I included the
> shared debugging lib. to keep the peace :)
> ...it's also there if people do what it, but that's more a
> rationalization after the fact than anything else.
Great! I have removed all -debug packages. Static debug library is now
included in libustr-dev. Things are a bit cleaner now.
I have uploaded new package and I'm going to send updated RFS here.